How about this argument:
Let’s say your car is all F’ed up and you take it to the shop. You like the mechanic since you have hung out w him in a bar a few times but never really had him work on anything before. You leave the car there thinking it the alternator or the starter or something but nothing sufficient to junk the car.
a week later you call up the shop and ask about your car. Mechanic says your last mechanic really screwed up your car bad and that he has not yet figured out what is wrong with it. However he gives you a bill for his time, asks for more time which you agree to.
A week later you call back. Car is still in the shop. mechanic still blames last mechanic and now thinks you have to change out the transmission, engine, exhuast system, and suspension and brakes. He hands you another big bill for the time he has spent on your car and its still F’ed up.
AT THAT POINT WOULD YOU CONTINUE W SAID MECHANIC OR CHANGE SHOPS?
Case closed. If Romney makes that argument he wins.
If Romney made ANY of the arguments you presented - he might garner enough votes to overcome the blatant Cook County Fraud that is going to surpass any in mankind's history on earth.
But he is NOT making those arguments now is he?
Perhaps he wants to leave that up to people like you - so that if he is dragged into the "winners circle" by folks like you, and is sworn into office - he can betray Conservatives and keep everything Obama has already done on the books. Then he can say "I'm not beholden to the Right wing extremists in our party", because of course he did not engage in any Right Wing boilerplate against Obama.
Of course, I contend that is what Tuesday at the RNC was all about anyway; rendering Conservatism irrelevant in national politics from this moment on out.